Navigator a disappointment- dogs & other issues

So...she went to get someONE to help clean it up. You wanted her to do the cleaning, but I doubt an employee on a cruise line would let anyone actually do that.

My son once threw up while in a grocery store. All over me and it hit the floor. There were two adults, so one went off to get an employee. Neither of us was going to clean it up ourselves; if we were at home, then yes, but while at a store no

Posted before I wrote the response!

I didn't expect to see a dog peeing on the sun deck. And I did expect the owners to clear it up.

The discussion here is about dogs on cruise ships - not children who are unwell.

This thread has gotten out of control with it's political correctness. Did the poster who said "crippled" mean it with hate? No.

The word disabled is now offensive and close to hate speech, that's going on 20 years. Those of you attacking the person who said crippled should know that disabled is negative.

The term to use presently is different-abled or physically challenged.

Disabled is old and out of date and offensive. I personally wouldn't be offended by handicapped, crippled, or disabled because I'm not PC but I find it ironic those getting out of shape for the term handicapped or crippled will use the term disabled, which offends many people.

This thread is very off topic and highlights many current issues of society. Gonna be an interesting election year.

Some of the PC posters here are obviously confusing rudeness with having ultra sensitive thin skin. I suggest they either lighten up or stay away from those late night comedy shows on cruise ships.

Don't ever go to France ( or most places in Europe) where dogs in and sitting at tables is perfectly normal [emoji190].

Maybe in street cafes, but not in restaurants, you would have a hard job taking a dog that wasn't a guide dog into a UK restaurant.

WOW - 'America the land of self identity' :eek:

 

I absolutely love dogs but if I want to self identify as one which bathroom should I use?

 

Honestly, watching US news of late & now reading some of this thread I have to wonder what is next America?

 

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but seems not.

 

This growing culture of everyone has the right to be, or say, or do what they want without question or care as to whom else it affects & if you disagree your a racist, bigoted, sexist, ageist, disability phobic or any other title the PC culture wants to label you with to shut you up, is leading to one big societal collapse. Just Google transabled to see how far things can go.

 

I have all respect for the legitimately identifiably disabled, but if you have a health issue that a dog can assist you with then you need to have that assessed by a professional & the dog needs to be certified & trained as such. Nobody should be able to claim their pet is a service dog just because they feel like it. :rolleyes:

 

PUBLIC SAFETY MESSAGE: If anyone is offended by my opinion then there is probably a safe room just around the corner you can run to with all the other victims traumatised by free speech. :p

Plenty of us Americans wonder the same thing. Our legal system is allowed to create these messes and no one does anything to get it under control.

You sound like the type to leave dog waste and cigarette butts without cleaning up.

 

 

 

See how easy it is to pass stupid judgments based on nothing? :rolleyes:

Let's see, the comment I responded to said he would remove tips. I said nothing about throwing cigarette butts down or leaving dog waste without cleaning it up. In fact, I threatened to do nothing untoward.

Sure, those are the same things! LMAO!

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

People who take their lap dogs/companion dogs on cruises by declaring them "service animals" are gaming the system and rank right up there with people who borrow grandma's handicap placard so that they can park for free, people who butt in any line, or chair hogs whose sense of entitlement gives them - in their little minds - the right to reserve "their" loungers until they are ready to use them. In other words, they are boors - and sooner or later karma will get them.

I think withholding gratuities is the only logical way to express displeasure to guest services at having dogs on ships, or smokers for that matter.

 

And if the waiter doesn't enforce the rules they shouldn't get a tip.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

Whenever I have a problem with any corporate entity, I go to a manager, and I voice my displeasure.

If it is not resolved to my satisfaction, I sometimes elevate it to a higher level.

And sometimes, the experience goes on Trip Advisor, and various other social media. So, trust me,

"withholding gratuities is the only logical way to express displeasure"

is pretty shortsighted and lame.

Firing off an email to the CEO may get you a response after you've gotten off the ship; but I have my sincere doubts as to whether it would resolve the issue while onboard. I doubt the efficacy of your approach. And, just speaking honestly, the amount of hassle and arguing I'd have to go through to get the attention of the Captain would absolutely dominate my vacation time and ruin my vacation. It's like trying to reach a store owner to rectify the situation of a bad employee. Sometimes more grief than the original issue.

 

Just saying, companies mostly speak one universal language: $$$. When people complain AND take away money that corporate things tend to happen faster.

 

I'd just hand the worker cash. Not the waiters fault really. Can't penalize them.

 

I've yet to be impressed by the response of Mr. Bayley on any issues. For someone who use to work in guest services onboard ships he sure does seem to have insulated himself from onboard issues.

 

You're certainly not wrong, but if I took your approach I'd get off that ship with a level of frustration and aggravation through the roof watching that dog eat off the table every day while my strongly worded email went unanswered.

 

BTW - I've heard good things about Ichyami in Boca. http://www.ichiyami.com Going to try that next. My job actually has me spending more time around the Sunrise area, if you know good sushi there let's hear it :)

I am sorry you have never been impressed with responses from Mr. Bayley's team. His office did handle a matter for me, that seemingly no one could tackle, even my then TA, when it was a mistake Royal had made. Granted it was pre-cruise, but still his office moved it to resolution.

Too often, not judging all situations, when someone finds a problem they look to the easiest ways to show their displeasure - remove tips. It in no way resolves the problem. I say this often 'If someone wants to find a reason to do something, they will find it, sometimes in the most unlikely place' and I see this all the time. Had a conversation, that went down that road at work, just yesterday. Had a great laugh over it, as well.

Believe me, NOTHING gets in my way to ruin my vacation.....nothing is aggravating enough to but such a damper on my vaca-time. Life is WAY TOO SHORT, another lesson I have learned in life. But I have also tried to take the path in life, to be different than others (by choice) and make a difference and not just say "Oh well".

I think withholding gratuities is the only logical way to express displeasure to guest services at having dogs on ships, or smokers for that matter.

 

And if the waiter doesn't enforce the rules they shouldn't get a tip.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

Sure, and if someone keeps smoking on the balcony next to yours, withhold the waiter's tip. Anything else annoy you? Take it out on the waiter!

Or, address these issues with those that actually hold responsibility for them.

And that is your company's CHOICE.

 

From previous discussions like this, I have learned that there has not yet been a successful lawsuit against a company that questions, sends a disruptive service dog out, etc. So your company is being silly. This isn't the fault of "fake" service dogs. This is the fault of the place you work.

 

You are correct, my employer made this 'policy' choice. The goal is to help the person to the best of our ability, and make them as comfortable in our business as possible to have them feel comfortable returning as a customer.

I don't believe the company is being silly, just realistic in HOW to implement something in a company that has thousands of locations nationwide with each location having a minimum of 60 employees and it is difficult to make sure the any question would be posed 'properly'.

In my working sphere, my boss knows exactly how I will handle EVERY situation, if a pet owner puts their pet on my counter. When people with real service dogs are at the counter, the dog almost immediately as the person starts talking to me, lays down on the floor, clearly the dog received some command from the owner to do so. I won't be discriminating whether it is a dog, cat, parrot, snake.....it will be "Please remove your pet from the counter, to enable me to help you". As a matter of fact, when parents put their children on the counter I ask them to please take the child down, they may fall and get hurt otherwise.

We happened to be seated in the MDR on Enchantment several years ago next to the table of a woman with a service dog. I have no idea what her reason for the dog was (and don't need to), but the dog was obviously at work - he lay at her feet under the table during dinner; he proudly walked next to her wheelchair as her husband pushed her around the ship; the only times we saw her without the dog were brief moments when she stayed in the Solarium while we assume her husband took the dog to the dog bathroom.

Maybe the dog detected oncoming seizures, maybe he detected low blood sugar; but whatever his function, I would hate for her not to be able to cruise because actions of people gaming the system cause trouble.

As we get older, we need special accommodations to cruise - oxygen and a C-Pap for my husband, a Bi-Pap for me - and as our world gets smaller, cruising becomes more important to us (we have 6 cruises booked right now).

I guess what I'm asking is that we "walk in other people's shoes" and continue to assume the dogs are necessary service dogs unless we see them acting in an unprofessional and disruptive way. Then I believe we should complain to ship's personnel and escalate as necessary until action is taken in the particular situation. Personally I'd rather cruise with several unnecessary dogs with "entitled" owners than keep one person from cruising only because he/she needs a service dog to make it possible.

Sorry, I just reread this, and it sure sounds as if I'm preaching, but I feel strongly that we should resist cutting down the apple tree because of a few bad apples - just work to make sure the rotten apples don't spoil the pie.

Margy

.

 

We always want service dogs to be "seeing eye dogs", but those dogs are incredibly special and AMAZING. They are trained from puppyhood. That's just NOT what the majority of service dogs are.

 

And no, not all service dogs are trained to that degree. Is your puppy trained like that at this point? You've run across a dog that helps you naturally; it IS a service dog. Neat, huh?

 

You are confusing a Seeing Eye Dog with other service animals. The dogs I mentioned earlier that have saved the life of their owners' grown son many times, were BORN with this instinct. Those dogs weren't trained to lead a blind person; they could just sense that there was a problem, and they naturally alerted their people.

 

No, what you are doing is confusing common courtesy for entitlement because of a disability. Here is a list of what the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners considers to be the minimum level of training for a dog to be considered an Assistance Dog with public access.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwis6s6V5vLMAhURc1IKHY8YC-4QFgiGATAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaadp.org%2Fiaadp-minimum-training-standards-for-public-access.html&usg=AFQjCNExrT_kDCdKzHNljJV9s8ROt--3LQ

 

Note that this is intended as a guide for people who want to self-train their assistance animal, so even that dog that "naturally" detects something should be trained to this behavior, and puppies that are not trained to this level should not be in public.

 

I had a Newfoundland who loved to swim in the ocean, but when our children went wading, she would come out and lay down, and you could see her literally counting heads, until all the kids were out of the water. Never trained to do this, it comes instinctively to the breed. Does this make her a "service animal"

 

So you're happy forcing someone who already has a disability to pay more money for such registration and certification?

 

I'm not happy to do that. I want to make things easier for those with disabilities.

 

So, under your thoughts, a person who needs a wheelchair lift for their van should get one for free? Free power chairs and scooters? Where does it stop? When it comes to the health of others, I think that public welfare trumps an individual's disability, or their ability to pay for training and certification of a service animal

 

 

 

I have worked with several service animals on cruise ships, and in other areas of my life, and have never had a complaint against them, because their owners knew that for many the presence of the dog was an imposition, and respected common courtesy by having a properly trained animal.

We happened to be seated in the MDR on Enchantment several years ago next to the table of a woman with a service dog. I have no idea what her reason for the dog was (and don't need to), but the dog was obviously at work - he lay at her feet under the table during dinner; he proudly walked next to her wheelchair as her husband pushed her around the ship; the only times we saw her without the dog were brief moments when she stayed in the Solarium while we assume her husband took the dog to the dog bathroom.

 

Maybe the dog detected oncoming seizures, maybe he detected low blood sugar; but whatever his function, I would hate for her not to be able to cruise because actions of people gaming the system cause trouble.

 

As we get older, we need special accommodations to cruise - oxygen and a C-Pap for my husband, a Bi-Pap for me - and as our world gets smaller, cruising becomes more important to us (we have 6 cruises booked right now).

 

I guess what I'm asking is that we "walk in other people's shoes" and continue to assume the dogs are necessary service dogs unless we see them acting in an unprofessional and disruptive way. Then I believe we should complain to ship's personnel and escalate as necessary until action is taken in the particular situation. Personally I'd rather cruise with several unnecessary dogs with "entitled" owners than keep one person from cruising only because he/she needs a service dog to make it possible.

 

Sorry, I just reread this, and it sure sounds as if I'm preaching, but I feel strongly that we should resist cutting down the apple tree because of a few bad apples - just work to make sure the rotten apples don't spoil the pie.

 

Margy

Margy, you surely are NOT preaching and yes, I absolutely want those people who need a service dog (I need not know the reason) should have one onboard. What you describe, with the encounter you had with a person and their service dog, is what anyone should/would expect from a true service dog behavior.

But those that are gaming the system and clearly 'breaking the established rules of behavior for the animal' need to be held accountable for their behavior as it negatively impacts other cruisers. Royal on many issues, struggles to enforce their own rules. I just would hate to have a passenger who sat on a seat after a dog sat on that seat, have an allergic reaction that caused that person to stop breathing.

A service dog isn't a pet. It's considered a necessary piece of medical equipment for a disabled person (yes, the legal term still in use in codified law and regulation is "disabled," not "differently abled" or "challenged.")

As far as the hypothetical about a person who is deathly allergic to dogs, that doesn't change the right of the disabled person with a service dog to be accompanied by his or her service dog. There's also no actual law or regulation prohibiting the service dog owner (yes legally dogs have owners, not custodians or parents) from placing the animal on a chair or other furniture beside them. If someone went up to the disabled person and asked them to take the dog off the chair and they said "The dog must be beside me to detect changes in blood chemistry" or some such thing, that dog is with all likelihood going to stay right where it is. And that would happen whether or not the animal is an actual service dog or whether the owner is lying in order to have their beloved pet right beside them at all times.

Although I do agree that there is no way being fed from the table is necessary for a service dog to perform its task. and if the cruise line has its own internal rule that service dogs are not to be fed from the table, they should be asking the service dog owners not to feed them from the table.

A person with an allergy of such intensity, it'd be on them to request their own accommodations (clean chair, a stateroom away from any dog or dogs onboard, a transfer to a cruise with no service dogs registered onboard - I believe a passenger has to notify the cruise line that they will be accompanied by a service dog, they aren't supposed to just show up at embarkation with one) but the line doesn't have to accommodate them by putting the service dog off the ship. That likely would not happen.

A service dog isn't a pet. It's considered a necessary piece of medical equipment for a disabled person (yes, the legal term still in use in codified law and regulation is "disabled," not "differently abled" or "challenged.")

 

As far as the hypothetical about a person who is deathly allergic to dogs, that doesn't change the right of the disabled person with a service dog to be accompanied by his or her service dog. There's also no actual law or regulation prohibiting the service dog owner (yes legally dogs have owners, not custodians or parents) from placing the animal on a chair or other furniture beside them. If someone went up to the disabled person and asked them to take the dog off the chair and they said "The dog must be beside me to detect changes in blood chemistry" or some such thing, that dog is with all likelihood going to stay right where it is. And that would happen whether or not the animal is an actual service dog or whether the owner is lying in order to have their beloved pet right beside them at all times.

 

Although I do agree that there is no way being fed from the table is necessary for a service dog to perform its task. and if the cruise line has its own internal rule that service dogs are not to be fed from the table, they should be asking the service dog owners not to feed them from the table.

 

A person with an allergy of such intensity, it'd be on them to request their own accommodations (clean chair, a stateroom away from any dog or dogs onboard, a transfer to a cruise with no service dogs registered onboard - I believe a passenger has to notify the cruise line that they will be accompanied by a service dog, they aren't supposed to just show up at embarkation with one) but the line doesn't have to accommodate them by putting the service dog off the ship. That likely would not happen.

The reality is a severe allergic reaction may not be known to the person having it , if it is the first ever episode. Floors are where service animals are trained to sit, which is in extremely close proximity to the owner whose health needs they are serving, and serving WELL.

It would be unrealistic for even a person who has the knowledge of their allergic situation to be walking into a public area and expect the facility to constantly keep a 'special chair' for people like them ....but it is very reasonable to expect dogs NOT to be sitting on a chair, where the allergic dander can be transferred from the dog to the chair and then to the another person then sitting on the chair.

If a person cannot be in a closed in room with an animal, that is a much different situation and that person with such a severe allergy needs to take special care for themselves. JMO.

Yes...but using a ship as the example, the ship's crew is not expected to know that if the owner states the dog must remain right beside them, that it isn't the case.

There is nothing codified in ADA which states a service dog must be on the floor.

So I don't think it can be expected that chairs and restaurant booths and that sort of thing will always be totally and completely dog free. And it is up to the person who is allergic to dogs to anticipate that. A business is not going to reject a service animal or tell a service animal handler how to handle its service animal based on the assumption that there might be someone present at the time or later on with an undiagnosed and deadly allergy to that animal. it just is not going to happen that way.

They could sanitize chairs or other furniture immediately after the animal has been in contact with it. Some might do this and it is likely a good idea. Although I was in a bar the other day and there was a guy in there with a small white dog sitting next to him in a booth. They wiped the booth down but did not "sanitize" it.

Legally speaking, a person with a deathly allergy to dogs who knew about it could hold a business liable if they didn't accommodate them having known a service dog was in their business and sitting on furniture. But if the person with the deathly allergy doesn't know about it? They could encounter a dog, or a person who has been in close proximity to a dog, anywhere.

A service dog isn't a pet. It's considered a necessary piece of medical equipment for a disabled person (yes, the legal term still in use in codified law and regulation is "disabled," not "differently abled" or "challenged.")

 

As far as the hypothetical about a person who is deathly allergic to dogs, that doesn't change the right of the disabled person with a service dog to be accompanied by his or her service dog. There's also no actual law or regulation prohibiting the service dog owner (yes legally dogs have owners, not custodians or parents) from placing the animal on a chair or other furniture beside them. If someone went up to the disabled person and asked them to take the dog off the chair and they said "The dog must be beside me to detect changes in blood chemistry" or some such thing, that dog is with all likelihood going to stay right where it is. And that would happen whether or not the animal is an actual service dog or whether the owner is lying in order to have their beloved pet right beside them at all times.

 

Although I do agree that there is no way being fed from the table is necessary for a service dog to perform its task. and if the cruise line has its own internal rule that service dogs are not to be fed from the table, they should be asking the service dog owners not to feed them from the table.

 

A person with an allergy of such intensity, it'd be on them to request their own accommodations (clean chair, a stateroom away from any dog or dogs onboard, a transfer to a cruise with no service dogs registered onboard - I believe a passenger has to notify the cruise line that they will be accompanied by a service dog, they aren't supposed to just show up at embarkation with one) but the line doesn't have to accommodate them by putting the service dog off the ship. That likely would not happen.

Actually, Specter v. NCL does state that "nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements do not apply if disabled individuals would pose “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures."" So the use of a service animal does not completely trump anyone else's rights to good health (i.e. no reaction to an allergy), because the possibility of an allergen from the dog getting into the a/c system and affecting the entire ship could not be eliminated by a modification of practices, policies, or procedures, or the introduction of special HEPA air filters for the entire a/c system would not be considered "reasonable".

As to your hypothetical dog that needs to sit on a chair to perform their service, that would need to be discussed with the cruise line in advance, so that the seating and table area could be sanitized after the dog used the area, both for sanitation reasons and allergens.

Lets face it, the real reason this whole discussion is happening is because businesses don't want the bad PR or the legal expense of an ADA case, whether the case has any merit or not. In most cases, the business will be considered to have the deeper pockets and will find no relief from legal costs even for cases with no merit. And the plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless the plaintiff wins, so the plaintiff is free of all consequences for filing suit.

agreed. RCL has a rule that says service dogs can't sit on the furniture. But service dog handlers bring their dogs in and sit them on the furniture. And RCL does nothing. Most likely because they are afraid of fallout from enforcing their rule, in the form of an irate disabled guest (or pretending to be disabled but there isn't any way to know the difference), bad press, or a lawsuit.

another reason why "Tell that passenger to put the dog on the floor or I will withhold your tips" probably isn't going to work.

Yes...but using a ship as the example, the ship's crew is not expected to know that if the owner states the dog must remain right beside them, that it isn't the case.

 

There is nothing codified in ADA which states a service dog must be on the floor.

 

So I don't think it can be expected that chairs and restaurant booths and that sort of thing will always be totally and completely dog free. And it is up to the person who is allergic to dogs to anticipate that. A business is not going to reject a service animal or tell a service animal handler how to handle its service animal based on the assumption that there might be someone present at the time or later on with an undiagnosed and deadly allergy to that animal. it just is not going to happen that way.

 

They could sanitize chairs or other furniture immediately after the animal has been in contact with it. Some might do this and it is likely a good idea. Although I was in a bar the other day and there was a guy in there with a small white dog sitting next to him in a booth. They wiped the booth down but did not "sanitize" it.

 

Legally speaking, a person with a deathly allergy to dogs who knew about it could hold a business liable if they didn't accommodate them having known a service dog was in their business and sitting on furniture. But if the person with the deathly allergy doesn't know about it? They could encounter a dog, or a person who has been in close proximity to a dog, anywhere.

Here is a quote from the DOJ's ADA FAQ page, linked here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiSlpGggvPMAhUJ0h4KHfUYBekQFggzMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ada.gov%2Fservice_animals_2010.htm&usg=AFQjCNH4sJKncW_rPGglKfAeoAKbmweQJA

"Q31. Are stores required to allow service animals to be placed in a shopping cart?

A. Generally, the dog must stay on the floor, or the person must carry the dog. For example, if a person with diabetes has a glucose alert dog, he may carry the dog in a chest pack so it can be close to his face to allow the dog to smell his breath to alert him of a change in glucose levels."

So, by this, having the dog on a chair in a public space is not allowed. And the only place for the dog other than the floor is being held.

And here:

"Q32. Are restaurants, bars, and other places that serve food or drink required to allow service animals to be seated on chairs or allow the animal to be fed at the table?

A. No. Seating, food, and drink are provided for customer use only. The ADA gives a person with a disability the right to be accompanied by his or her service animal, but covered entities are not required to allow an animal to sit or be fed at the table."

So, from what I see, the government feels that placing a dog anywhere but the floor, and certainly sitting at the table, is unacceptable under the ADA, or they would have required it.

And for the poster who claimed that an untrained puppy that provided a service was okay:

"Q6. Are service-animals-in-training considered service animals under the ADA?

A. No. Under the ADA, the dog must already be trained before it can be taken into public places. However, some State or local laws cover animals that are still in training."

Under the ADA, a service dog in training is not the same as a service dog. Individual states may have different laws; there are some where state law indicates a service dog in training must be treated exactly the same way as service dog. Probably doesn't apply to a cruise ship though, ships don't have a state.

I have seen a lot of service dogs. Several small ones sitting at tables. I have never seen anyone tell the person with the dog that they had to put it on the floor. Most organizations will endure tons of complaints from other customers and still won't ask a person with a service dog to put it on the floor. They are afraid to confront the customer with the dog. This is likely true almost anywhere. They are more afraid of the service dog owner than they are of the possibility of anyone else being harmed by the act of a dog sitting on a chair (which while not impossible, has extremely low odds).

I'm with you on this... saying anything about anyone's appearance in order to elevate yourself or others is kind of low.

I recently took a government survey and they had a race question that wanted to identify "African American", "Hispanic", "Native American", "Caucasian/White". I didn't really know what to check. I've never been to Caucasia and I'm kind of more pink than white (sometimes more tan). If they had just "American" I would have checked in instantly. I almost checked "Native American" because I was born here and I am a native, but I knew they meant something different.

I hate all the labels they are putting on people. When there's a need to identify someone (eye color, hair, height, etc.) then I can understand. Certainly, if there is a black person in a room full of white person it becomes a way of identifying them (and vice versa with a white person), but putting people into categories based on what they look like is just crazy.

I do love the study of cultures and ethnics and one of the things I love most about cruising is I learn a lot about different places in the world from people who are from, or have been there. I think diversity should be celebrated.

But, trying to build a hierarchy of worth based on what people look like is just never going to work.

Tom

I do agree that the use of any racial epithets is in poor taste, but bottom line, I don't get offended over the mere use of a word, rather it is the INTENTION that makes a difference.

I know of 3 Pinnacles who bring their " service dogs" and I would bet my last dollar, they are not legally certified.

 

 

 

My last cruise a woman( in her wheelchair) had the dog on her lap in the CL and in Chops( for breakfast)

 

That dog was right at table level and she was feeding him.

 

 

 

Very touchy subject to me. Most cases they do not want to pay a kennel bill so Fido cruises along.

I agree, I must be stupid. I wanted to get a small dog, actually prefer a Collie, however I like to travel. I live in Spain by the way. If I had known I could get a pet on board to relieve my stress. I would have gotten one already.

I think the kennel bill issue is the key. When I had pets before, I paid the bill.

Oh well, and no I won't get a pet and take him with me. I respect those that really need a service dog.

Sorry would a horse qualify? Hmmm. Beats the 10grand they charge to do a TA flight for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi All,

 

Just a quick question, do cruise lines charge for dogs to be on board?

 

I have never seen a dog on board a ship.

 

Pete

I have traveled on two different RCCCL ships where a service dog was working. Both times, the owners were blind. One was a couple who were both blind and the other a single person.

Because my DD and I raised Seeing Eye dogs for years (German Shepherds, Labs and Retrievers), I was very interested to share our stories and experiences. I learned that the ship provides a specific area for the dogs to use to relieve themselves. The NJ based Seeing Eye uses the terms "Park and Parktime" for where and when the dogs can relieve themselves. We train the dogs from 6 weeks till about 17 months and they are trained to go on command, not when they feel like it! When the couple would be sitting sunning, they would allow me to pet the 2 dogs and speak to them, but when I would pass the dogs in the hallway, even though I would say hi to the couple and their dogs, they were working and would never approach me for a nuzzle even though they recognized my voice. In the MDR, they sat under the table at their "masters' feet. Seeing Eye dogs are never allowed to beg or eat from the table. Our puppies were trained to not do this!

One of our "puppies" failed out of the Seeing Eye training program as he had a pancreatic enzyme disorder and couldnot control his bowels when he was in a stressful situation. He came back to live with us for 12 years. He still never begged, ate from the table or barked except to alert us to someone at the door.

Service animals are always well behaved as everyone has said. There should be regulations and requirements before you bring your pet on board!

If I see any animals sitting at the table, in someone's lap, etc; i'll be speaking up!